[Mb-civic] Privacy rights and public safety - David Cohen & Kathy Glick-Weil - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  Privacy rights and public safety

By David Cohen and Kathy Glick-Weil  |  February 16, 2006  |  The Boston 
Globe

SOMETHING HAPPENED in Newton recently that should be reassuring to us 
all. We found that we were able to protect public safety without having 
to sacrifice the privacy of law-abiding Newton citizens.

We did this by requiring the FBI to follow the law and obtain a warrant 
before accessing library computers believed to be used in e-mailing a 
threat to Brandeis University.

By requiring a warrant, we ensured that the FBI received the information 
it needed to pursue the perpetrator of a serious crime, while ensuring 
that the information of the other law-abiding users of those same 
computers was kept private. This is precisely how the American system of 
justice is meant to work.

The events in Newton appear to have struck a chord with people, 
considering all of the discussion it has generated. We have heard from 
hundreds of people from across the country, many of them pleased with 
our actions, some of them expressing outrage. We have been the subject 
of several talk-radio programs, local and national television news 
stories, newspaper articles, and opinion editorials. Again, some 
praising us, some deriding us.

Let us say, in no uncertain terms, that our insistence on a warrant did 
not put public safety at risk. If the federal authorities needed 
immediate access to those computers to protect people's safety, the FBI 
and US attorney's office would have cited their specific authority to 
take them without a warrant, and we would have cooperated fully. At no 
time did these agencies indicate that this was necessary.

It should also be noted that city officials, contrary to being 
''uncooperative" with federal authorities as was sometimes reported, 
worked with the FBI by preserving the crime scene and by making the 
library's computer personnel and staff available to ensure that 
authorities had instant access to the information they needed as soon as 
the warrant was obtained.

We are at a precipitous time in our nation's history. The United States 
has taken the leading role in the fight against terrorism, and in doing 
so has heightened our national awareness of our potential vulnerabilities.

Since the devastating attack on the World Trade Center buildings, we 
have reorganized the federal government and reallocated our resources. 
We have changed how we travel, attend events, and in many ways how we 
live our lives. We have made prudent and sensible changes to enhance our 
safety and security. While the benefits of these changes are clear, we 
must also be forthright about the costs these changes have brought to 
bear as well.

There are those who believe that all security measures trump privacy 
rights. There are just as many people who believe the loss of our right 
to privacy at the hands of law enforcement is unconscionable. But what 
we can all be hopeful about is that we do not have to sacrifice one to 
preserve the other.

America has always been the land of the free, and our freedom has indeed 
come with a cost. But we must never forget what Benjamin Franklin put so 
eloquently: ''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The question before us today is nothing less than this: Can we expect 
law enforcement agencies to respect privacy rights while they fight the 
war on terror? At a time when Congress is debating the president's power 
to wiretap without judicial approval, the time to answer this question 
is now. And if the incident in Newton is any indication, the answer is yes.

David Cohen is the mayor of Newton. Kathy Glick-Weil is director of the 
Newton Free Library.  

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/16/privacy_rights_and_public_safety/
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related